Roe vs Wade; the Justices use Logical Fallacies: Logic 101

Is a first year Logic’s course a requirement for Supreme Court Justices?

In the decision supporting slavery in 1857 as well as in Roe vs. Wade, they argued that since neither negroes or slaves or the “unborn “ are specifically mentioned in the constitution or it’s preamble, that they therefore had no claim to human rights under the law. They said;

“… a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. . . were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” Dred Scott, 1857

And in the Roe vs. Wade 1973 Supreme Court Decision ;

“The word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn…. [T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

Or is all that is required a devious mind and a political appointment? I think the main requirements for the Justices who sat on the bench for the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, were track shoes and a pole vault, so they could all the more easily make one leap of logic after another, one non-sequitur after another and one logical fallacy after another, in route to the worst Supreme Court Decision since the Dred Scott in 1857 , that upheld slavery.

The fallacy they appeal to in these statements is known as “the argument from silence” fallacy, in claiming that the lack the of specific mention means that the unmentioned does not exist constitutionally speaking. Which is very strange, because they argued in the opposite direction when claiming that the fact that the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned, didn’t mean that such a right doesn’t exist. They then took this unmentioned right and it used to justify pre-natal infanticide. So at least we’re aware that the distinguished judges understand the fallacy of arguing from silence.

The Declaration of Independence quite clearly states that “…all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights…” among these being listed first and foremost, the right to life. It is listed first because it is foremost of all the unalienable rights, because without life, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are meaningless, at least on this side of Glory.

Let me further point out a small fact that our robed legalists seemed to have missed. The text says “men”; not men, women and children. Or infants, teenagers and 50 to 70 year olds. Or good Germans and non-Jews. Therefore can we conclude that only men have unalienable rights under the American Constitution?

Of course not. In the original intent, and in the context of the times and the document, “men” actually refers to all members of mankind. Men and women, children of all ages, old people, Jews and non-Jews, and pre-natal and post-natal infants. All human beings have a unalienable right to life that can not be challenged without the due process of the law. Pre-natal infants are fully human from the moment of conception. Their DNA does not code for rats, chimps, ground squirrels or parakeets or cockroaches.

For years we have allowed this truth to be clouded by the evolutionary fairy tale of Ernst Haeckel, who taught that all embryos recapitulate their “evolutionary history”. We’ve confused people into thinking if we kill the baby in the early third tri-mester we’re only killing a chimp. But Haeckel’s fabrication was shot down over a hundred years ago, not long after Haeckel was tried and found guilty of fraudulently changing his embryo drawings. The idea of embryonic recapitulation only remains in high school textbooks and on secular TV., it has been rejected for a number of reasons by modern science. It was only one of the many Darwinian speculations that led to the wanton destruction of innocent human life.

They are human, and they are alive. In fact Congress ruled the following;

“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception [they defined fertilization and conception to be the same] marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. (1)

Once again we find the Supreme Court playing games with the constitution, just as they did back in 1857, in the Dred Scott decision. In the Dred Scott pro-slavery decision, though, they only presumed to have authority over liberty.

In Roe v. Wade they abrogated authority over human life itself. Trust me, no human life is sacred or safe while Roe v. Wade stands as law of the land.

A side issue? Don’t make me laugh.

(1) Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7 On pages 7-9, the report lists a “limited sample” of 13 medical textbooks, all of which state categorically that the life of an individual human begins at conception.


About notmanynoble

woodcutter from Washington State
This entry was posted in Roe v.. Wade Decision and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Roe vs Wade; the Justices use Logical Fallacies: Logic 101

  1. Steven Posey says:

    I think you’re right on on this. The Bible is the only true basis for human rights. If it wasn’t who would say what the standard was? We don’t want Hitler to do it.


  2. notmanynoble says:

    That’s what are founders thought. If governments could give rights, they could take away rights. But according to our founders it’s God who endows men with certain basic rights. Governments can try and take them away, but they become criminal when they do. It’s up to us to see that the government stays inside of it’s fences. Even Jefferson recognized that the natural flow of government is to take away and infringe on rights where they have no business going.


  3. Steven Posey says:

    I have heard it said that an ammendment to the Constitution would be better than overturning Roe v. Wade. It does seem like that would be stronger but it also seems to imply that the Constitution (and bill of rights) does not already protect the right to life of Americans including the unborn. Of course the problem is an anti-Biblical view of life and there will always be those who try to get around or change the law.


  4. notmanynoble says:

    Good point and i’m not an expert on constitutional law. But it was an illegal ruling, how do you amend an illegal decision? The ruling itself not only implies it actual puts. The. Government in the place that the forefather’s assigned only to God, who alone can give or take unalienable rights. (Forgive the quirky sp. Using a kindle)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s